This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

Shooting at civilians, the use of white phosphorous (which, incidentally, is banned by the Geneva convention), and firing on UN convoys doesnt seem like a very effective way to maintain security.

Then first of all you're ultimately wrong even in your own realm of truth, since statistics show that the situation before operation Cast Lead(hundreds of rockets per week) and the situation after operation Cast Lead(1 rocket per month) are incomparable.

Secondly, white phosphorous is not banned, that's hiding half the truth, it is completely allowed in non-civilian areas.
It's also one of the poorest ways to try and kill an individual, it's a slowly moving source of heat and light, and the only reason why it's banned in civilian areas is because it cannot be used in a discriminating way.
It would be way more effective, of course, to simply drop a half-ton bomb was there ever an intent to do harm to civilians.

And finally, the IDF has had no intentions in attacking civilians, nor would it have gained any of its interest by killing civilians, and rather the contrary is true.
The dropping of leaflets, phoning to homes, and three hours of humanitarian aid during every day in the operation were all meant to minimize the civilians lost lives.

I have no doubt that a person who chooses to post an al-Jazeera report instead of referring to a moderate non-biased source would not take a change of heart in his opinions, and hence I am effectively wasting my time here, but do realize that I would not avoid giving the real version of the truth when confronted with false statements.

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

Re: Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

The Vice President of the USA visits to further the peace process, and the day before he arrives, Israel announces the building approval of a further 114 illegal houses in the occupied West Bank. Another brick wall hit.

Re: Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

Originally Posted by Apocalypse

Then first of all you're ultimately wrong even in your own realm of truth, since statistics show that the situation before operation Cast Lead(hundreds of rockets per week) and the situation after operation Cast Lead(1 rocket per month) are incomparable.

And this makes it ok to shoot down Palestinian civilians?

Secondly, white phosphorous is not banned, that's hiding half the truth, it is completely allowed in non-civilian areas.
It's also one of the poorest ways to try and kill an individual, it's a slowly moving source of heat and light, and the only reason why it's banned in civilian areas is because it cannot be used in a discriminating way.
It would be way more effective, of course, to simply drop a half-ton bomb was there ever an intent to do harm to civilians.

The Gaza strip IS a civilian area.

And finally, the IDF has had no intentions in attacking civilians, nor would it have gained any of its interest by killing civilians, and rather the contrary is true.

Regardless of the intentions, the fact remains that the IDF fired on and killed Palestinian civilians.

The dropping of leaflets, phoning to homes, and three hours of humanitarian aid during every day in the operation were all meant to minimize the civilians lost lives.

Just under 1,000 Palestinian civilians were killed, that doesnt sound like limiting civilian casualties.

I have no doubt that a person who chooses to post an al-Jazeera report instead of referring to a moderate non-biased source would not take a change of heart in his opinions, and hence I am effectively wasting my time here, but do realize that I would not avoid giving the real version of the truth when confronted with false statements.

Can you point to why the report is inaccurate?

Originally Posted by Goobieman

Hamas and Hezboulah terrorists are civilians who hide among innocent civilians. Because of the nature of the conflict -- one side being all civilians - civilians must be shot at.

I'm sorry but that's a sickening statement. You fight groups like Hamas and Hezbollah not with an open ground war where civilians are in danger.

Incorrect. WP in the use against military targets is not explicitly banned by any treaty.

They used white phosphorous in populated civilian areas.

IIRC, this was a mistake. It is certainly not common practice, or a matter ofpolicy.

If it was a mistake, why did it happen so frequently? UN convoys are clearly marked to identify them so this sort of "mistake" doesnt happen.

UN buildings were also fired on, repeatedly. Was that a "mistake" too?

No wonder, given the folly of basing your conclusion on the 'facts' presented here.

Gunning down unarmed civilians and attacking United Nations relief convoys and structures is NOT an acceptable way to wage a war.

The excuse of going into Gaza to eject Hamas militants...flimsy and I want to see some proof that ANY military operation would do some good but I could accept it. But the Israelis seemed to be firing on everyone and everything they could see. It doesn't seem like they even cared what they hit. I'm behind a serious and well-planned attempt to destroy a true terrorist organization or group but this seems more like an exercise in revenge for Israel than anything else. Almost a thousand Palestinians killed, five thousand injured, and for what? What has Israel gained? Hamas is STILL firing rockets, people are STLL fighting the Israelis.

I mean, maybe it's me bein Irish but I cant abide or support a military operation that gives every impression of treating civilians like target practice.

Re: Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

Originally Posted by Manc Skipper

The Vice President of the USA visits to further the peace process, and the day before he arrives, Israel announces the building approval of a further 114 illegal houses in the occupied West Bank. Another brick wall hit.

You are referring to the building in East Jerusalem.
Israel has considered Eastern Jerusalem as an annexed Israeli land, simply put a part of Israel, since the six-day war(1967).

The Israeli government's freeze of the West Bank settlements hence has no ruling over East Jerusalem, and business go as usual there.

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

Re: Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

You fight groups like Hamas and Hezbollah not with an open ground war where civilians are in danger.

You arent paying attention.... Hamas and Hezbollah hide among civilians, making this impossible. They do it because they know that when the Israelis attack them and civilians die, people like you will blame the monstorous Israelis.

If Hamas has a mortar in the middle of a school campus, lobbing shells into Israel, and if Israel hits that mortar, the schoolkids that die as a result are the responsibility of the terrorists that chose the mortar site, not the Israelis.

They used white phosphorous in populated civilian areas.

Against military targets.
Your claim was tha WP use is banned by the GC. It is not.

If it was a mistake, why did it happen so frequently? UN convoys are clearly marked to identify them so this sort of "mistake" doesnt happen.

"SO frequently"? I heard of it happening once.
As I said -- its not a matter of policy or routine, it was a mistake made by soldiers in a combat situation.

UN buildings were also fired on, repeatedly. Was that a "mistake" too?

UN buidings in the area of legitimate targets were hit. Big difference.

Gunning down unarmed civilians and attacking United Nations relief convoys and structures is NOT an acceptable way to wage a war.

And if the picture you're painting were accurate, I'd agree with you.
However, you're only seeing what you want to see and refusing to see the reality of the circumstance.

Which is why there are holes within the international law that surround this conflict.
The Gazan government, the terrorist organization of Hamas, launches rockets at Israeli civilians from civilian complexes and buildings.
That officially makes it a military zone, but civilians still live there.

Regardless of the intentions, the fact remains that the IDF fired on and killed Palestinian civilians.

Yes, the IDF's weapons have caused civilians deaths, and so did NATO's weapons, so did any other Western army's weapons really.
Israel is not unique in this case, and the Israeli right to self defense is definitely existent and undeniable.

Just under 1,000 Palestinian civilians were killed, that doesnt sound like limiting civilian casualties.

Actually it does, even though the IDF figures point at 295 civilians killed, around 900 is also considered to be very low when considering the number of bombs dropped in the area.

Can you point to why the report is inaccurate?

Were I referring to the specific report's inaccuracy I would gladly take the time to review it for you.
I was merely speaking on the fact that you've chosen al-Jazeera as your source over other sources.

They used white phosphorous in populated civilian areas.

Where militants target Israeli civilians from.

If it was a mistake, why did it happen so frequently? UN convoys are clearly marked to identify them so this sort of "mistake" doesnt happen.

Frequently?
During the operation there was only one major hit on a UN facility.
I remind you that the Gaza Strip is one of the biggest host of UN facilities.

Gunning down unarmed civilians and attacking United Nations relief convoys and structures is NOT an acceptable way to wage a war.

Civilians and UN personnel were not targeted.
They were hit, as a result of being in a war-zone.
Obviously not because of their fault, but because of the ones who've made it a war zone, the terrorist organization of Hamas.

The terrorists pick the zone where they'll launch a rocket or attack Israel from, it's not like Israel simply drops a bomb on a convoy because it hates the UN or whatever you're trying to draw here.

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

Re: Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

You are referring to the building in East Jerusalem.
Israel has considered Eastern Jerusalem as an annexed Israeli land, simply put a part of Israel, since the six-day war(1967).

The Israeli government's freeze of the West Bank settlements hence has no ruling over East Jerusalem, and business go as usual there.

Unfortunately, it pertains to one of the many contentious issues

"Israel has announced a 10-month suspension of new building in the West Bank, but the curbs exclude East Jerusalem, where the Palestinians want their capital. "

The article goes on to say,

"Close to 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are considered illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this."